JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.7.2018 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Special), Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Special POCSO Case No.80 of 2016 whereby the learned trial Court sentenced the appellant accused to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and also convicted and sentenced the appellant accused to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant is hereinafter referred to as the accused as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant has alleged that the victim (daughter of the complainant) was aged around 6 years at the time of the incident. It is alleged that on 11.8.2016 i.e. the day of incident, her husband went for work and her mother-in-law went to attend a social function and at around 11:00 am, her daughter took Rs.2/- to purchase chocolate and thereafter returned back after half an hour wherein she looked scared and it appeared that she had fever and slept. It is alleged that her daughter woke up and started crying and complaining about pain in her stomach and upon inquiry, she was informed that the accused committed a wrongful act with her and the First Information Report came to be lodged on 14.8.2016 at 22.15 hours under section 376 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

2.1 In pursuance of the complaint, the accused was arrested on 15.8.2016 and the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and collected the necessary evidence and filed the chargesheet against the accused. That the accused was produced before the learned trial Court and after the copies of the chargesheet were given to the accused free of cost under section 207 of the CrPC, the charge was framed against the accused at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6 wherein the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

2.2 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses and produced nine documentary evidences on record.

2.3 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order of conviction, as stated above.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

3.1 By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly recorded the order of conviction. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far as the defence of the appellant is concerned and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is required to be reversed, as such.

4. This Court has heard Mr.Jarjeeskhan, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Bhargav Pandya, learned APP for the respondent State.

5. Mr.Jarjeeskhan, learned advocate for the appellant has mainly argued that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the case of present accused requires consideration. That the learned trial Judge has erred in appreciating the fact that most of the panchas have not supported the case of prosecution and they have been de